Opinion
March 11, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
After extensive expert testimony concerning the procedures used by defendant in treating plaintiff wife's periodontal disease, the jury found that defendant was not negligent. "The weight to be afforded the conflicting testimony of experts is a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury" ( Sternemann v Langs, 93 A.D.2d 819). On this record, it cannot be said that the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493; O'Boyle v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., 78 A.D.2d 431; Palmeri v. Spies, 69 A.D.2d 968; Haftel v. Kestler, 53 A.D.2d 572).
Plaintiffs' claim that the court should not have charged the jury on the issue of contributory negligence in mitigation of damages is without merit since there was a reasonable view of the evidence to support such a charge ( Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507). In any event, any error in the court's contributory negligence charge would have been harmless. The verdict makes it clear that the issue of contributory negligence was never reached as the jury determined that plaintiffs failed to prove that defendant was negligent ( Young v. Hackett, 49 A.D.2d 1013; Benoit v. Travaglini, 43 A.D.2d 587, affd 35 N.Y.2d 799). O'Connor, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.